PLAINTIFF NEEDED TO SHOW SHE WASN'T NEGLIGENT IN ANY WAY
As she was turning the corner at West 179th Street and Broadway (in Manhattan), E.M. was hit by a 50-foot tractor trailer operated by R.D.M.
When a personal-injury case was later filed, the defendants asserted defenses of “culpable conduct and comparative negligence” on E.M.’s part, and when she later tried to get those defenses dismissed, the Kings County Supreme Court ended up denying that request.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed that the defenses could not be disposed of unless E.M. could show that she didn’t contribute to the outcome, or wasn’t culpable, in any way. And that meant she needed to show “her own freedom from comparative negligence.”
Absent such a demonstration, and since the defendants raised an “issue of fact” as to her responsibility for the collision, the AD2 left the motion’s denial undisturbed.
Now who was culpable for that?
# # #
DECISION